Geographical Indications within the Purview of the WTO as a Tool for the Promotion of Economic Interests and Cultural Heritage: Conflicting Positions between the Old World and the New World and Some Solutions Thereof

Abstract

When it comes to intellectual property under the auspices of the WTO, the divide has always been between the developed countries on the one hand and the developing/least developed countries on the other. Developed countries who enjoy higher levels of innovative and have bigger economies have always pushed for an enhanced and more comprehensive intellectual property protection mechanisms. On the other hand, developing and least developed countries have always pushed back at these attempts. They regard the positions of the developed countries as efforts to force western-style legislation on them. But this has not been the case with Geographical Indications. The alliances and interests are not drawn on developed and developing/’least developed countries lines. They are rather drawn on the lines of the Old World on the one hand, and the New World on the other hand. The Old World is principally composed of European countries while the new world is predominantly composed of the countries born out of colonialism such as the United States, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Chile, South Africa, etc. interestingly, there is a third block which is mainly composed of major Asian ecnomies like China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc. Each faction has contradictory positions on what amounts to the appropriate levels of protection of GIs especially on foodstuffs and agricultural products. The Old World wants an enhanced protection on foodstuffs and agricultural products to the levels enjoyed by wines under the TRIPS Agreement. On the other hand, the New World regards the current levels of protection as enough, rigorously pushing back at all attempts at enhanced protection under WTO multilateral negotiations. The third block takes a somewhat compromising position between the two. These disagreements are partially responsible for the failure of the Doha Round of negotiations in the WTO. This paper explores the positions of the various alliances and the arguments that motivate their positions (economic interests and cultural heritage). It employs the case study of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada to show how these differences in positions have been successfully laced together by these two trade giants who both represent the two opposing factions. It concludes that with the right amount of will power, this can (though not easily) be replicated in the WTO ongoing multilateral negotiations.